What does Gregory of Nyssa have to do with preaching today?

So expository preaching is fine. I mean it is great to sit through an hour long sermon on Song of Songs chapter 4 and feel like you can atomize the whole thing to a person walking down Broad Street, but is it really that benificial? I mean, in a society that values image and emotion over word and reason (if it doesn't offend you, read "postmodern") should we really be doing this expository stuff all the time? I feel like the pastors should be wearing WWBRP (what would Bertran Russell preach) braclets. How should we preach? What is the most effective way of getting "the Word" out today?

I have been reading a bunch of Gregory of Nyssa for my essay due Monday (The influence of Plato and Plotinus on Gregory of Nyssa's conception of the soul - awesome) and one of the books Gregory wrote is called The Life of Moses. This book is amazing and I recommend it to anyone who wants to get a feel for this fourth century mystical theologian (the founder of mystical theology?). The book is a discussion of Moses' life centred around three key events - the burning bush, the Mt. Sinai experience, and God's passing by Moses in the cave (Exodus 3,19, and 33-34 respectively). Gregory takes us through these events historically but then goes into the "spitirual" meaning of all these things. This is what I want to discuss.

The "spiritual" interpretation of Holy Scripture is something very ancient in the Church, and something totally lost to us today except in some bootlegged form (above pastor saying the Song of Songs is about the Church). This was called the allegorical method of preaching, and I would like to make a short case for why it might be helpful to bring back to the Church today. First off though, it needs to be said that the allegorical interpretation is a difficult thing to do well. Just take a look at Augustine's interpretation of Genesis 1-2 or Thomas Aquinas' interpretation of the Good Samaritan. Unbelievable. I think there is a right way to use this method and a wrong way. Gregory of Nyssa strikes me as the best example of the right way to do it. He clearly emphasizes the historical meaning of the passages, but he goes on to discuss its spiritual significance. I think this comes from his very healthy understanding of "overflow of Being." Gregory is a philosopher-theologian in the strongest sense and feels free to use Plotinus whenever the Scripture warrants it. His greatest achievement is the understanding (or lack thereof) of the Divine infinity. Gregory as a Cappadocian Father is clear about God being beyond finitude, beyond comprehension, beyond reason. This leads later theologians to the via negativa (we can only say what God is not) and also leads the Eastern Fathers to talk about God's essence and His energies (we can't know His essense, only His energies - His actions). I think this is incredibly realistic and not well understood by the Western tradition where we are confident in our reason's power over creation (and the Creator).

So Gregory uses this understanding of the Divine infinite to undergird his exegesis - there is always more to say about God then we can ever say. So for instance in the section of Moses going up the Mountain to see God and entering the "dark cloud", Gregory sees a perfect time to talk about God's essential "darkness" (cf. Isaiah 45, "the hidden God"), His unknowability and His being beyond comprehension. Did Moses intend to write about God's infinite and transcendent being when he dictated Exodus (or it was passed down or what have you, but no JEPD please)? I don't think so, but it is certainly part of the text. You can never say enough about God, you will never exhaust His meaning from the Scriptures. This is what I mean by "overflow of Being." There is more in the text than could ever be spoken about.

Another example: in the event of God passing by Moses He only lets Moses see his back side, for "You cannot see my face, for man cannot see me and live." On one level this is fairly straightforward - God is too Holy to be seen by mortals. But is there more? Gregory goes on to says the following

"Scripture does not indicate that this causes the death of those who look, for how the face of life ever be the cause of death to those who approach it? On the contrary, the Divine is by its nature life-giving. Yet the characteristic of the divine nature is to transcend all characteristics. Therefore, he who thinks God is something to be known does not have life, because he has turned from ture Being to what he considers by sense preception to have being."

He goes on to say that "True Being is true life. This Being is inaccessible to knowledge." Gregory is pointing us away from carnal desires and reasonable desires to contemplate and seek God by faith - to seek Him through the very gift He has given us to see His face - faith in Jesus Christ. Again, was this the purpose of Moses "writing" this story? Probably not, but clearly it is more than an application of this text. It is a true reading of the Holy Scripture.

Are there any practical reasons for using an allegorical interpretation (done well of course) today? I think so. Firstly, people are captivated by story, not straight fact telling. I think the allegorical method is a great way to display the truth of God's Word to those listening in an easy way to understand and remember. I bet that whenever you hear Moses' story of the mountain you will always be reminded of God's "beyond rationality, His unknowability and true life." Allegorical preaching may be a wonderful way to remind people of both God's eternal truth and also keep them close to the Biblical story (you can't talk about God's "cloud of unknowing" without being drawn deeper into the text of Exodus 19). Secondly, I think in an age of image over word, this method has a better ability to imapct people's minds. It is based on a deeper meaning, something that requires a inner vision of the story to keep it grounded. Anything that involves people's imaginations is bound to stick better than rote fact telling. It is much easier to paint a picture with the allegorical method than the expository method because it is itself totally about behind reality and pictures within a narrative. We see God's nature being revealed through another picture. Thirdly I think this approach is a Biblical one. Not just because Jesus taught in parables (alright, but not too powerful on my watch) but because it is very similar to what Matthew does in his Gospel.

A bit more on this. In Matthew we find tons of "fulfillment" of prophecy. But the serious issue is that most of these "prophecies" aren't prophetic at all. Take the Hosea one: "Out of Egypt I have called my son." (Hosea 11:1). This is a historical statement in the Old Testament talking about the exodus and reminding the people of God's kindness to those in exile (which at the time the nation of Israel was). What has Matthew done? Clearly he is not ignorant of the fact that this is not a prophecy, rather he is using the Rabbinical tradition of Midrash - using Scripture as a "jumping off point" to further truth. Matthew is using Hosea 11:1 to remind people of how God always works. No Jew would have though Jesus was fulfilling a specific prophecy in Hosea ("check Hosea 11:1 off the list, now on to Micah and Zechariah, etc"), but Matthew would have reminded them that just like when YHWH brought His people out of Egypt before, again He has brought His people out of exile, for in Jesus the whole nation of Israel is wrapped up - past, present and future. So allegorical interpretation is just like this, using the text as a spring board, a jumping off point to discuss something always true about the covenant and eternal God.

So I think there is someting rich in the allegorial tradition, something which might be important in the Church today. Now all I need to do is figure out a way to preach allegorically on divorce (my sermon coming up). Any suggestions?

My Favourite Irishman

I tried to put this picture in the other post, but blogger was being stupid again. This is Fraser Hosford, and he is the greatest Irishman to live (even if he is Methodist, for now). Also, did you know that in "The Untouchables" Sean Connery is supposed to be Irish? Could he at least make an attempt at an Irish accent?

So We Don't Wear the Mortar Board?

Today was matriculation for all Oxford University students, so there was a lot of pomp and circumstance. Part of the deal with Oxford is tons of ancient rituals, of which this is the oldest. Every new student had to go to the Sheldonian Theatre this morning to stand in line for a bit:

After waiting around, we were ushered in the Theatre and had to wait for the vice-chancellor of the University came in to speak to us. This speech was at firs tin Latin (of course) and then he gave a short talk to all the students about the importance of the day, how we needed to uphold the honour and academic standards of the University, and how we needed to respect everyone no matter what they believed or practiced. Fine.

After the ceremony (which lasted about ten minutes in total once it got started) we all went out to the local pub for some bacon and drink. I think the best part of the whole thing was getting to play dress up. We all had to wear these black semi-coats over a black suit with a white bow-tie and carry a mortar board. That's right, you must carry the mortar board, you are not allowed to wear it for three years until we graduate. Now the best part is that each May and September when we take our exams, we have to dress up again in the Oxford uniform, plus we get to carry the mortar board around. Why are we carrying the thing if we are not wearing it? Well that's tradition for you, I guess. It is pretty cool though to me a member of Oxford University now, even if it entails wearing silly things. This coming from a guy who will be wearing a cossack/dress for the rest of my life when I am ordained. And one more picture from the ceremony:

The five Americans at Wycliffe Hall this year: Erik, me, Borck, Pat, and Chris. Go free market capitalism! Now back to writing an essay on the causes and consequences of the exile of Judah. Very interesting.

Rowan Williams (!), Evangelical Liturgy, and Chapel Flowers

This last weekend was the conference between Radical Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy, which was held in Cambridge (boo hiss!). Even though it was located there, I still attended to check out the sweetest combination of theologies ever! Cambridge is only about an hour away from Oxford as the crow flies, but the bus ride takes roughly three and a half hours, which is ridiculous. The participants at the conference included such notables as Archbishop Rowan Williams (the head of the Anglican Communion), John Milbank (head of radical orthodoxy) and Basil, the Bishop of Sergievo (head of looking like santa claus in a long black robe).

I was once again reminded of how rich the Orthodox tradition is, and how rich the Western tradition is though the likes of St. Augustine and St. Aquinas. One comment seems particularly appropriate here in Oxford: Liturgy shapes our theology. Let me explain.

To my incredible frustration, all the conservative and evangelical churches in the UK are really low in worship. They function very much like low Presbyterian churches, with a long sermon and no communion generally. They also tend to focus on praise songs (the kind you can replace the name of Jesus with your significant other and they still make sense) as opposed to hymns. This absolutely drives me crazy. I attened one of these evangelical churches last night and for two hours we sung about God making us good people, loving Jesus with (only?) our hearts and hearing a sermon on congregationalism which had nothing to do with the Scripture passage. The problem is that if I want liturgy, I have to put up with liberal theology and possible a homosexual priest. There is no church which has high liturgy and orthodox teaching. This is so bizarre to me.

From a radically orthodox prespective, how we worship is very important to how we conceptualize God and relate to Him. Going to a high liturgy forces you to be on your knees (literally!) in worship and contemplation of an Almighty God who is Trinity. The liturgy has been the expression of praise for the church of God for the last two millenia, and now we have this low church experience of "buddy Jesus." I think we need to seriously reconsider our worship practice and the effect it has on our theology. Liturgy says that God in Christ is ever present, so present that you actually recieve Him bodily in the sacraments, He is physically dwelling with His poeple. We truly are His temple, His Body and His Bride. Low church worship says (to me) that we need to get Him figured out with out minds, and make sure we rationally relate to God, plus maybe we can meet Him through some non-confrontational fluffy sing-song.
Another disappointment in England is that the evangelical movement is so interested in "making church relevant." This I think is the death blow to any worshiping community. The Church is not called to be relevant, it is called to be redemptive. Jesus Christ did not become incarnate to reconcile the world to Himself in order to let girls come to worship wearing low-rider jeans and worse. But if you don't use projectors and popular secular music how will you fill the pews? I think we should probably trust Christ and His Spirit to bring people to Him rather than shooting low for mass appeal. If anyone thinks that traditional "stuffy" liturgy and Church teaching doesn't appeal to youth then why did half a million young Catholics show up to World Youth Day to support the most theologically conservative pope in one hundred years? I think the Church can do better than merely being another venue or meeting place, it is called to be a seperate city, though imperfect, reconciling the world to Christ through His sacraments and His word.

Those are just some ramblings I suppose, but it is a frustration of mine that we can't have both liturgical and evangelical in the same sentence for a church over here. In other news, I was in charge of chapel flowers this week for Wycliffe Hall, and I think I did an okay job. You will have to be the judge, but it is harder than it looks.

Thumbs up or thumbs down?